Tyme
-
Posts
343 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tyme
-
-
5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
1) How precisely does a biological male come to the conclusion that he is really a woman?
It's in the soul and brain. Just like you know the church is true they know they are the opposite sex.
2) If he arrives at this conclusion based on the fact that he "feels like" a woman, how does he know what it feels like to be a woman?
He does indeed feel like a woman. They know based on the fact that they're more like a woman than a man. It's easy for them to see they are different from their biological sex just by looking around at other women.
3) What exactly is a female feeling?
I'd say a female feeling is to want to dress like a female, act like a female and do all things normal females around them do.
4) Even if it made sense to speak of female feelings and female thoughts, and even if it were possible for a man to know for certain that he is experiencing those feelings and thoughts, in what objective sense do those feelings and thoughts make him a woman rather than simply a feminine man?
Like I said, they know from examples around them. There are plenty of feminine men who do not think they are females. That's proof alone that they are not just feminine men. If they were feminine men their soul and brain wouldn't cause them to think they are female.
5) But the Left tells us that gender is a social construct. They reject the idea that women must necessarily have any particular feeling or thought or taste or preference. If gender is indeed an artificial construct and our physical features have no bearing on our identity as "man" or "woman," then what in the hell is a woman? A woman, in that case, is not defined by her feelings, thoughts, ideas, preferences, or her body, reproductive organs, chromosomes, DNA, etc. So what is she defined by? If he isn't defined by anything, then how does it make sense to call yourself a woman? Isn't that like calling yourself a whooziwhatsit or a thingamadoodle? Isn't "woman" now a term empty of all objective meaning?
I don't think gender is an artificial construct. In fact, most "leftists" don't think that either There are very really differences between a man's brain and a woman's brain. If you look at a transgender brain they are more in line with the sex they think they are.
This isn't about left or right. It's about rather we want people be to be joyful like Adam or miserable like unto the devil. Trying to make an LGBT man or woman fit into this church at this time makes them miserable. You will say that they can still marry and love. How many of those marriages end in divorce or the person is just plain miserable? This is not a church for all to find joy. It's a church for heterosexuals to find joy. That doesn't align with doctrine. The problem is that if the Prophet came out today and said LGBT can be full members there would be a schism. You can see the evidence of that in the other thread. Most people said they wouldn't believe the Prophet if he came out saying that. That's why they are not receiving revelation to solemnize LGBT in the Temple. Similar to how blacks weren't allowed the Priesthood for a long time. God in his infinite wisdom didn't send the revelation until the members were ready. The rough stone rolling will keep on rolling roughly gathering the elect of God at all costs.
-
9 hours ago, boxer said:
I just think it's fascinating that so many members don't really believe in the 2nd Coming anymore . . .it's like they willfully ignore the signs of the times. Or make comments like "every next generation is wicked". Boiling pot and all . . .fascinating, really fascinating.
Another universal truth is that every generation thinks the second coming is going to happen in their generation or the generation after.
-
6 minutes ago, boxer said:
And thus why the problem is never solved. You can't live your life in fear of what "might" happen if you do the right thing.
It's the same reason why parents have so many problems with their kids. Child doesn't complete their homework on time, so the parents sit there with the child cajoling, begging, pleading, etc. for the child to finish the homework. A wise person comes along and says, hey why not just not help the child and let them do their homework, if they don't complete it then they don't complete it. But then they will fail!!! wails the parent, yes you are right they might fail . . .but they might also succeed.
If her husband initiates divorce, then that is on him and his sin. I never said this is an "easy" problem. But if you want to fix the problem, then fix the dang problem and let the chips fall where they may. The root problem in a sentence is this:
"Wife has a job, she doesn't want to work and wants to stay home with kid and she wants her husband to work and he doesn't want to work."
No amount of begging, pleading, cajoling, hoping, wishing, threatening, etc. is going to work. So if wife really wants to stay at home with child, then she needs to quit her job and stay at home. The outcomes from that are going to be either a) husband steps up to the plate and gets a job b) husband does nothing and they go on welfare c) husband leaves her.
First option is better than what is currently happening. 2nd option is worse than what is happening. 3rd option is a wash-why is it a wash? Well, based upon what the wife has stated she doesn't really have a marriage right now anyways and she is already working. If her husband leaves, she'll need to work to provide for her child and will be in no worse situation than she is in right now. I'm not advocating for divorce, only that the fear that "her husband might leave her" is not a valid argument. In fact, it might actually be a real turning point in their marriage-is the husband going to step up or are they going to be stuck for the next 15 years and then finally get a divorce b/c they could never come together?
Which is worse, have a marriage in name-only now, do something drastic to shake it up to possibly make it a real marriage with the risk that it might dissolve or continue down the same path for the next 15 years be miserable and then have your husband leave you?
And counseling for game addiction . . .that won't work. Unless you want to drag out the problem for 5-10 years.
Counseling to discuss their issues with a mediator. An objective non-partial third party.
Also remember you’re only hearing one side of the story.
IMO which ever person can make the higher income should work or both work part-time. It’s a partnership after all.
-
2 minutes ago, boxer said:
Notice, I didn't say anything about the Church capitulating . . .only that let's talk in another generation. It is objectively true that today's current generation is worse off in every single aspect compared to the prior generation. Academics, mental health, spirituality, etc.
You may be right that the Church "capitulates" but it won't be a good thing for society.
It’s more of the same ol same ol. It seems every generation thinks they are better than the next.
-
3 minutes ago, boxer said:
You are only looking at the short-term. Come back in a generation and then let's talk.
I'll take you up on that. That's how sure I am that the church is going to capitulate. The church is a rough stone rolling that can't be stopped. If it doesn't change course on gays the converts will be slim to none in the U.S. You're already seeing that in Europe. That's why I am sure the church will reverse course. We need all hands on deck rather they be straight, gay, transgender or any sexuality.
-
As far as I'm concerned the whole family proclamation will be scrapped in the not so distant future. It will be looked at as men of their era talking as men. *hides*
-
Most of the advice you have been given here will lead to a divorce. If you don't want that don't follow their advice. I would try talking to your husband and going to counseling. Who's to say he doesn't want to stay with the kid as much as you do? Why should he not be allowed to see your kid grow?
-
48 minutes ago, LePeel said:
Reflect on your religion and imagine how well those concepts would be received in leftist circles. That gender is eternal and an immutable, unchangeable condition, for example.
You pull one thing out and believe the whole party is of the devil. Just like all LDS don't believe the same stuff -- all democrats don't. Plenty of good LDS folk are democrats.
As far as gender being eternal, immutable and unchangeable facts simply don't bear that out. You can look at brain studies of transgenders and they align with the gender they claim to be. The further research delves into gender identity the more it will disprove LDS theory. Why would somebody for heaven sake want to change their gender? It makes no sense that transgenders are lying about it. I don't know a soul who would want to change their gender for no reason. There are too many negative repercussions for a transgender person. You can talk to parents of these kids who say they've been the opposite gender their whole life. Do you actually think a parent would want to make their kid transgender for no reason? What kind of parent would do that?
-
5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Right. Heaven forbid anyone speak of anything in sacrament meeting that an investigator might misunderstand!
Let's make sure all content in our sacraments meetings and classes is standard "Christian" material so no one gets the wrong idea.
And....sarcasm off.
BOM as an example. When I was an investigator I wonder why you guys talked about the BOM so much. Then I read it and I was like oh ok.
-
Just now, LePeel said:
Its not monster painting. The political left's positions are opposite at every point to the Gosepl of Christ. They couldn't be any more obvious if they wore a sign around their necks.
Care to elaborate?
-
2 hours ago, anatess2 said:
Diversifying news sources is always good. Knowing the bias of the news source is even better. But, I believe it is still not enough. Keeping an ear on the news as a HABIT - an ongoing interest - instead of just tuning in when something sensational comes up is what keeps our nose primed to sniff out BS opinions/propaganda disguised as news.
I will give you an illustrative example. Here are 2 news articles from the past few days - Corporate Debt Bubble (a predicted market crash like the one caused by the housing market bubble):
This is the guy who broke this story: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/21/theres-a-9-trillion-corporate-debt-bomb-bubbling-in-the-us-economy.html
This is a guy who responded to it: https://www.continentaltelegraph.com/economy/sigh-the-9-trillion-corporate-debt-bomb-was-the-entire-point-of-quantitative-easing/
So, right now, this is not big news. It's just something out there on the sidelines so it hasn't yet gotten swallowed by the propaganda machine. So, you can pretty much read these 2 news articles and pick out the pertinent facts of the issue - corporate debt through quantitative easing is how Obama took the super bad economy he inherited into a growing economy as he exited the stage. This is what Trump inherited. So, without the "heat of the news coyotes" pulling your emotions one way or the other, you can objectively study these facts and try to figure out if this is good/bad - do you think quantitative easing and 0% Fed Interest Rate was a good thing? Do you think a steady increase in interest rates is a good thing now?
Now, because I've been keeping tabs on economic indicators for a while (mainly because I like to know which currency I need to be keeping as I travel between the US and the Philippines), I know that the Fed Reserve have been steadily raising interest rates while Trump has been blasting the Fed Reserve on twitter about not raising interest rates this fast because he doesn't want the economy to stall... I'm sure Trump is aware of this Corporate Debt bubble that could burst if the economy stalls. I'm also sure the Fed Reserve are not that stupid as to maliciously increase rates just to "get Trump" through the bubble bursting (although, the way politics is going today - with even Justice Roberts taking his pound of flesh defending the indefensible - you can never be really sure).
So, I'm going to predict that if this Corporate Debt Bubble bursts tomorrow (an intrinsic feature of Capitalism to self-correct imbalance) this is going to be the 24/7 wall-to-wall news:
CNN: Trump Economy Falls into Recession (Stelter and Cooper would have exclusives on how they predicted that Trump would be bad for the economy)
MSNBC: Trump Brings the country into Bankruptcy like his property in Atlantic City (Maddow would have an exclusive about Trump's bankruptcies)
New York Times: Trump has finally proven that he doesn't know what he is doing
Vox: Trump eats 2 scoops of ice cream and binges on diet coke after his economic failures
Fox News: Trump's re-election in doubt as economy falls into recession. (Hemmer would have a feature on who is the best candidate strong in the economy to challenge Trump in the primaries and Shep Smith would be parotting whatever they're saying in CNN)
Brietbart: After taking credit for Trump's booming economy, Obama should now take credit for the failed economy.
InfoWars: Trump saves the economy by letting corporate debt bubble burst. Bill Clinton is still a rapist.But... if you have been paying attention... you'll know exactly why there's a Corporate Debt Bubble and you'll know exactly why it burst regardless of how the facts are presented in any news source. And you would already have formed an opinion on it.
Do you think the student debt bubble is bigger than the corporate debt bubble?
-
Looks like the Mormon politicians are gearing up for a fight in 2020.
-
31 minutes ago, Alia said:
3 years after being discharged ?
Absolutely. I didn't get partial VA benefits until about a decade after I discharged.
-
29 minutes ago, Alia said:
I am not 100% sure but I think he was evaluated before being discharged.
He could easily get diagnosed with PTSD if he is a combat vet.
-
58 minutes ago, Alia said:
He doesn't have PTSD he was keen on rein-listing about 15 months ago.
He should at least go to a psychiatrist to make sure he doesn't have PTSD. It could mean upwards of $3,500 a month.
-
What’s the difference between a tax break and welfare?
-
Interesting.
-
I understand most Libertarians think taxation is theft and shouldn't happen. I'm in agreement that it is essentially theft. With that said, it's the only way for government to operate. Without taxes there would be no roads, police, fire, military and a host of other worthwhile causes that we can all agree on. How do you reconcile your political beliefs with scripture? In particular, the scripture about give unto Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's.
-
42 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Do you support a man’s right to kill his wife?
Do you support a man’s right to decline to marry?
Do you think a divorced man, having been denied the opportunity to merely kill his wife and move on with his life, should be able to make the government pay his alimony for him?
So... No, no and no.
-
-
Do you support abortion?
Are you in favor of contraception?
Do you think a child and family should be supported via government programs or other programs?
-
I'm grateful for a bed. I never realized how thankful I am for a bed until I had to sleep on the floor one night.
-
I lasted about 20 hours again. There is some emotional tie to my smoking. When I talk to my dad I want to smoke. It's probably cause that's one of the things we bonded over in the past. As sad as that is. This goes down as the toughest thing I've ever had to do in my life. I know that God's blessings are so much more greater than smoking. I'm trying to keep an eternal perspective. The dependency is really difficult to shake.
-
There is going to be a wave of automation to hit the U.S. soon. It will eliminate around 40% of jobs. That means there is going to be a lot of people out of work. As work is a principal of the gospel that leaves me with one question. What will the church do when 40% of the population can't work? I guess it could be an unprecedented time of church growth. The church members who are not employed can focus on building up Zion or other charity work. As I assume the government will come up with some kind of way to pay the unemployed. It seems even if they are paid by the government somehow it will leave a lot of idle time. That violates principals of the gospel. Will the church turn away from work as a principal?
Let's make sure all content in our sacraments meetings and classes is standard "Christian" material so no one gets the wrong idea.
Interviews with leaders
in General Discussion
Posted
I don't understand why the church won't make it policy that anybody under 18 must be accompanied by parents for interviews. The only thing I can think of is that maybe the kid won't be as honest if their parents are around. My daughter was just baptized Saturday. I found out she was interviewed alone by her branch president. It freaked me out that something inappropriate might be asked. I don't care how much my ex or in-laws trust the branch president. You just never know what could happen. There are plenty of horror stories about these interviews.
Do you think a parent should attend interviews for any child under 18? Why or why not?